GoSlash27

Best advice I can give is this: Use the (aerodynamically stable) booster stage to get your transstage to at least 30 km. That's about 1800 m/sec DV on a gravity turn. If you can get your upper stage that high before seperation, it won't tumble because the air's too thin. tl/dr: If your second stage tumbles, you need more DV in the first stage and less DV in the second stage. Best, -Slashy

Val, I would've agreed with your intake advice in 1.04... but what he's doing is technically correct in 1.05. Engines don't need nearly as much intake area as they used to. The precooler is now the magic bullet intake, but only if it's incorporated in a way that doesn't add drag. This design adds drag by employing unnecessary sponsons. Best, -Slashy

I concur with everything AeroGav has said here. I would also point out that you don't actually need 2 RAPIERS for such a small payload and therefore could build a much more efficient spaceplane with the parts. A single RAPIER and precooler would allow you to eliminate those 2 sponsons on the sides, dramatically reducing your drag. Focus on eliminating unnecessary drag instead of adding thrust. If it can get to 360 m/sec, it will make it the rest of the way. *edit* Also, I don't know what you have clipped into the airframe back near your engines, but be aware that clipping doesn't hide the drag. Whatever that is, it's just as draggy as it would be out in the open. Best, -Slashy

FWIW, I haven't bothered closing intakes since the 1.00 update. As far as I can tell, closing intakes has absolutely no effect on drag anymore. Best, -Slashy

You rang? The velocity of an orbit is sqrt (GM/r). The period of an orbit is circumference/v, or 2pir/sqrt(GM/r). Rearranging that, we get p=2pir*sqrt(r/GM) p=2pi*sqrt(r^3/GM) Rearranging for r as a function of p p/2pi= sqrt (r^3/GM) (p/2pi)^2= r^3/GM GM(p/2pi)^2= r^3 cuberoot(GM(p/2pi)^2)= r so plugging in the values... cuberoot((6.67384x10^-11)(5.29158x10^22)(21,600/2(3.14159))^2)= r cuberoot((3.53156x10^12)(3.43775x10^3)^2)=r cuberoot(4.17364x10^19)=r 3.46874x10^6=r Altitude= r-600,000 Altitude= 2,868,740m Hit me up if you have any questions! Best, -Slashy

Geschosskopf, I agree with all of that. The real break in the system is that Kerbal applicants are essentially unemployable. Why break the bank hiring a newbie when you can turn a handsome profit rescuing experienced kerbals instead? There's no reason to ever hire an applicant the way it's set up.

To be fair, you don't actually *have to* grind contracts to get your program off the ground. You can unlock everything up to tech level 5 without ever taking a contract if you do it right. Or even visiting the Admin building. You don't really need funding until it's time to upgrade the facilities, and by then the contracts pay handsomely. Rescuing Kerbals is something you want to do anyway and it pays well. And of course satellite contracts are pretty OP. All this assumes, of course, that you can engineer cheap and effective rockets and are a competent missileer. If not... yeah, it's gonna be a struggle. Best, -Slashy

Aethon, Well... Pilots have more skillz than most probe cores (not much value), but they can also give crew reports, EVA reports, collect surface samples, move science reports, and plant flags. Probe cores don't do any of that. Alshain, The specialization of the Kerbal would *definitely* have an impact on whether or not I rescue them if I know beforehand. I like to keep a balanced roster and I never hire Kerbals. I hate going to all the trouble to rescue a Kerbal only to find out that I can't use them. Best, -Slashy

JackBush, Sorry, I'm not quite understanding the question. If you want to recover science from the surface of Minmus, you'd use a probe. For science in orbit, you'd use a satellite. You've really only got 2 biomes in the space around Minmus (low & high), but they're very easy to do. A lander probe will give you the flexibility to hit all the biomes, but is more difficult. Best, -Slashy

Frybert, I dunno, but you don't have to crop it. Just drag the crop lines out to the full image. Best, -Slashy

Frybert, Just go to your profile page, click where it says "profile photo",and drag your new pic in. Best, -Slashy

Chano, When you first start out, just "launch" a pod with goo canisters from the pad and runway. Observe the goo, do crew reports and EVA reports. This will unlock the tier 2 nodes. Now repeat with the Science Jr. and unlock general rocketry. You are now ready to go to orbit. Your first orbital ship should just be an SSTO using the LV-T45. Staging doesn't really buy you anything on the way up with your limited engine selection. Once you've made orbit and successfully recovered, you will be able to unlock more tech. I like to go after Aviation early so I can build a jet powered rover to collect all the science from KSC. Each building is a unique biome. As for building light efficient rockets, I design mine mathematically rather than trial and error. See here for more info: Best, -Slashy

Majorjim, yeah. You can now just drag 'n' drop a new hi res profile pic like you would on a social networking site. Best, -Slashy

All, I hate to complain in my very first post on the new forum, but I'm really dubious about this new rep system. Rep used to have a specific function on the old forum; it marked a respondent as particularly helpful and knowledgeable (or not). This was useful to newbies for judging the merit of proffered advice. If somebody with high rep offers advice, it was probable that the advice was sound. Now we get rep for anything that anybody "likes", which is pretty much meaningless. Are we sure this is the way we want to go? Sorry 'n thanks, -Slashy

[quote name='maccollo']Your fundamental assertion, that it saves significant delta V, is wrong.[/QUOTE] This. We explored this in depth about a year ago. Launching vertically is not more efficient from a standpoint of DV, fuel expenditure, or payload fraction. The reason is that you lose all benefit from the Oberth effect and your burn is fighting gravity the entire time. If you use a rocket with a very high t/w, then it's not *much* less efficient in DV (although it is still less efficient), but it's even worse for fuel and payload fraction. The only advantage is that it's easier to pilot. Best, -Slashy

[quote name='Harry Rhodan']The flag pole also counts as a biome.[/QUOTE] Harry Rhodan, This is true, and several of the rooftops are also biomes, but last I checked (I haven't checked in 1.05) you need to be in or on them for the biome to count. This is tricky to pull off in early career which is why I didn't bother mentioning them. Best, -Slashy

An even more helpful update: I just started a vanilla career to walk through the process of getting a space program off the ground. Flight 1&2: Just a command pod with 2 goo experiments. Get goo, crew report, EVA "flying" and on the surface at the launchpad and runway. This unlocks Basic Rocketry and Engineering 101. Flight 3&4: Command pod with Science Junior. Get material analysis from pad and runway. This unlocks General Rocketry. Flight 5: Orbit and recover using a pod, 'chute, decoupler, 10 FL-T200, LV-T45, and fins. Get crew report in orbit, EVA "flying" where you land, EVA on the surface, and crew report landed. This unlocks Stability. Flight 6: I botched this one, but was still able to proceed. Orbit and recover the same ship with a Science JR. Collect all the science as above. I tumbled and lost the Science Jr (don't try it with Bob :( ) but was still able to unlock Aviation. Flight 7: Construct a jet powered science rover and collect science from mission control, the spaceplane hangar, astronaut complex, R&D, Admin, Tracking station, and crawlerway. This will yield about 100 science. Unlock Advanced Rocketry, Survivability, and Basic Science. You will now be able to do pretty much whatever you want. You can start exploring Kerbin with a science jet or start collecting science from space low & high and even do flybys at the Mun and Minmus (but remember you have no patched conics or maneuver nodes yet). Best, -Slashy

Steen, Orbit is possible from the first moment you get liquid fuel engines and stack decouplers, but it's not easy. [img]http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g13/GoSlash27/BasicOrbit_zpsqhnwr4un.jpg[/img] As for how to get more science, have you collected the science from the launchpad and runway? Don't forget that you can EVA while on Kerbin. Best, -Slashy [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Better yet, watch how 5thHorseman gets a stock career going: [video=youtube;T-0MshSjHzE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-0MshSjHzE[/video] Best, -Slashy

I've been thinking about this today, and I think there might be a way to use a munar slingshot to reduce the DV requirement. 1) eject to an orbit with half the period of the Mun's orbit 2) wait an orbit and a half 3) do a small prograde burn at Pe to raise Ap a bit and get a new Munar encounter 4) sling around the Mun's leading edge to set up a free return trajectory. It'd take over a week, be a major PITA to set up, and not really save much DV... but it should work. Theoretically... Best, -Slashy

pawelk, As you can see from that link, you can do an awful lot with just 18 tonnes and 30 parts. That's not really what's holding you back. In fact, building bigger ships with low tech parts will just make your problems worse. What you need is [U]better parts[/U]. Better control modules, active fins, bigger tanks, reaction wheels,batteries, solar panels, and lighter engines for the upper stages. Better parts come from filling out the tech tree and that comes from collecting science. I recommend focusing on science and not worrying about money so much unless you're really low on cash. Best, -Slashy

MoeslyArmlis, If you'd be willing to update the wall and have somebody else arbitrate the rules, I'm sure that'd be helpful. I'd recommend starting a "caveman 2" thread so you'll have the ability to edit the OP. Best, -Slashy

pawelk, It's not "impossible", merely "challenging" :D The [url=http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/127795-KSP-Caveman-Challenge!]cavemen[/url] do this sort of stuff for fun. I would definitely wait for a battery at least and you're not far from having a reaction wheel. Best, -Slashy

[quote name='jarmund']Alright, so I'm considering starting my 1.0.5 save soon, and I'm currently revising the details of the save (Career? Science? Difficulty? Mods? Etc?). On thing is that I'm leaning towards science, as careers have a tendency of either having too much funds or resulting in a mission grind. The problem with this is that I really want spaceplanes to serve a purpose other than being cool. I've made many SSTOs, but I end up just sticking a huge launcher under the payload, as they're a lot less hassle getting into orbit. So, my question is therefore twofold: 1. Do spaceplanes/SSTOs/Shuttles give any benefits other than reduced cost and increased cool? 2. Any mods that'd make spaceplanes useful in a science save?[/QUOTE] jarmund, No, nothing is superior to anything else outside of career mode. If you have the tech and cost is no object, the only thing that matters is whether the payload makes it to orbit. The only advantage I can think of for SSTO spaceplanes in that situation is that they have more abort options than vertical or multistage platforms. If something goes wrong during launch, you probably won't end up with a kerbal massacre. Best, -Slashy

[quote name='Hannu']I can open a parachute at 4-5 km (MK-1, small parachute and heat shield with 25-100 % ablator capacity). There are tens of seconds time. Maybe less in mountainous areas, but there are not many too high peaks on whole Kerbin and if player wants to be sure they are easy to avoid. Is it necessary to go to make coffee or read e-mails just during re-entry?[/QUOTE] Hannu, Best I can guess is this affects some users but not others. Some people never notice anything wrong, while others are smacking into the ground without ever having a chance to deploy their chutes. I was lucky enough to not kill any kerbals, but it was close enough for me to recognize that it was a threat in my career. Believe me, I know how to reenter gently. I've been around the block. So for the folks who aren't seeing the problem, no worries and carry on. For those who are... we have a workaround for it. Best, -Slashy